Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1847 (JHR)

Maheshwar Sao @ Mahesh Sao v. State of Jharkhand

2017-11-02

ANANDA SEN, H.C.MISHRA

body2017
JUDGMENT : H.C. MISHRA, J. 1. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellants in both these appeals and learned counsel for the State. As both these appeals arise out of the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These criminal appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction dated 5th May, 2012 and order of sentence dated 8th May, 2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Hazaribagh, in S.T. No. 188 of 2005, whereby all these appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 302/149, 436/149, 452/149, 342 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, all the three appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, and fine of Rs.20,000/- each, for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC. No separate sentence was awarded under Sections 436/149, 452/149, 342/149 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. In the facts of this case, the amount of fine was directed to be given as compensation to the widow or dependents of all the deceased in the case. 3. This case relates to the gruesome murder of 14 persons, including the unfortunate death of a girl child aged about 1-1/2 years, who died due to suffocation, when her house was burnt. The other victims were gruesomely butchered by the members of the extremists group belonging to M.C.C. party. It may be stated at the very outset that another set of accused persons were put to trial separately and by the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.6.2003, passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, in S.T. Nos. 40 of 2002, 225 of 2002, 132 of 2002 and 239 of 2002, 23 of them were convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court for the same offence arising out of the same occurrence. Three of them, namely, Hiraman Sao, Hani Mian and Suresh Sao were awarded death sentence by the Trial Court. 40 of 2002, 225 of 2002, 132 of 2002 and 239 of 2002, 23 of them were convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court for the same offence arising out of the same occurrence. Three of them, namely, Hiraman Sao, Hani Mian and Suresh Sao were awarded death sentence by the Trial Court. The Death Reference 10.4 of 2003 was answered in negative by a Division Bench of this Court by common judgment delivered on 21.7.2004, in the said Death Reference No. 4 of 2003 and the connecting appeals filed by the convicts, whereby sentence of death awarded to those appellants were altered into imprisonment for life. Some of those appeals were also allowed and the appellants of those appeals were acquitted by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Jharkhand v. Rani Mian and others, reported in 2004 (3) East Cr C 138 (Jhr). Yet another set of accused persons were put to trial separately and by the common judgment of conviction dated 12th July, 2013 and order of sentence dated 17.7.2013 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Vigilance, Hazaribag, in S.T. No. 40A of 2002, S.T. No. 234 of 2004 and S.T. No. 380 of 2004, where four of them were convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court for the same offence arising out of the same occurrence. Two of them, namely, Kailash Sao and Birendra Ram @ Birodhi Ram were awarded death sentence by the Trial Court. The Death Reference arising from the same, was also answered in negative by this very Division Bench by common judgment delivered on 12.10.2017, in Death Reference No. 3 of 2013 and the connecting appeals filed by the convicts in State of Jharkhand v. Kailash Sao and others, whereby sentence of death awarded to those appellants were altered into imprisonment for life. The imprisonment for life awarded to all the convicts was clarified to mean imprisonment for the rest of their natural life. 4. The imprisonment for life awarded to all the convicts was clarified to mean imprisonment for the rest of their natural life. 4. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of one Baleshwar Sao(PW 8) recorded on 14.4.2001 at about 11:00 a.m., in village Beltu, P.S. Keredari, District Hazaribag, wherein the informant stated that in the night between 13/14.4.2001, while he was sleeping in his house, he woke up at about 2:00 a.m., on the sound of firing in the village, he came out of his house and found the area commander of M.C.C., Kailash Sao, who was of his own village, and another 36 named members of MCC, including the appellants Mahesh Sao, the brother of Kailash Sao, the area commander of MCC, Baleshwar Sao and Naresh Ganjhu, and 20-25 unknown members of MCC, variously armed with rifles, guns, farsa, garasa, sword and lathi etc. As soon as the informant came out, he was assaulted by the extremists and they asked about the whereabouts of the members of Gram Raksha Dal. As he pleaded ignorance, he was tied by the extremists and brought to the house of Parmeshwar Sao, a member of Gram Raksha Dal, where about 50 to 60 extremists were present variously armed with guns, rifles, farsa, garasa, sword and lathi etc., out of whom he identified about 19 members of the extremist group, who were named in the fardbeyan. The extremists were firing guns and hurling bombs on the house of Parmeshwar Sao and they were forcing Parmeshwar Sao to come out of the house. When Parmeshwar Sao did not come out of the house, Kailash Sao, Birendra Ram and other extremists put his house to fire. When the house started burning, eleven named members of Gram Raksha Dalcame out of the house, who were apprehended by the members of the extremist group and they were badly assaulted by the extremists. They all were tied by the members of the extremists group. Parmeshwer Sao did not come out of the house, who died in the house as his entire house was burnt and the nearby houses were also burnt. They all were tied by the members of the extremists group. Parmeshwer Sao did not come out of the house, who died in the house as his entire house was burnt and the nearby houses were also burnt. Thereafter the extremists came to the house of one Sattar Mian, where three persons were kept confined by the accused persons, who were also about 40 to 50 in number and variously armed with guns, rifles and sharp cutting weapons, in which the informant had named about 15 members of the extremists group. About 25 to 30 extremists were asking Sattar Mian to open the door and when he did not open the door, they started firing guns and hurling bombs on his house and Kailash Sao, Mahesh Sao and other extremists put his house also on fire. When the house started burning, Sattar Mian came out of his house, who was apprehended by the extremists, including Kailash Sao and Mahesh Sao, and he was butchered by sword, near his house, by cutting his neck. He was also assaulted by bhala and he died at the spot. By that time, the day broke. All the apprehended persons were brought to Ghorchari agriculture field and all 11 members of Gram Raksha Dal, namely, Kamdeo Thakur, Brahamdeo Sao, Shiv Tahal Sao, Ram Briksh Sao, Guru Dayal Sao, Bansi Sao, Nepali Kandu, Munsi Ram, Jeevlal Ram, Prayag Sao and Dukhi Sao, were butchered to death by the extremists. Kailash Sao had cut the legs and hands of Kamdeo Thakur by garasa and thereafter he was beheaded. Similarly, Brahamdeo Sao arid other members of the Gram Raksha Dal were also cut, butchered and beheaded by Kailash Sao and another extremists. Thereafter, Kailash Sao, Birodhi Ram and Prakash Ram threatened by shouting that anyone, who would oppose the MCC group, shall face the same consequences and thereafter they went away shouting the slogan 'MCC Zindabad'. The daughter of Sattar Mian had died in the burnt house, due to suffocation. The informant has stated that the occurrence had been committed by about 400 members of extremists group, apart from the persons named, and they were aged between 15 years to 60 years. At the time of occurrence, the extremists had bolted the houses of the villagers from outside. The informant has stated that the occurrence had been committed by about 400 members of extremists group, apart from the persons named, and they were aged between 15 years to 60 years. At the time of occurrence, the extremists had bolted the houses of the villagers from outside. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Keredari P.S. Case No. 21 of 2002, corresponding to G.R. No. 874 of 2001, was instituted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 452, 323, 324, 342, 436, 120-B of the IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act, Sections 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 17 of the CLA Act, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. 5. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, the charge was framed against all the appellants for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 302, 307/149, 436/149, 452/149, 342/149, 323/149, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the CLA Act, and upon the accused persons' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. 6. In course of trial, 24 witnesses have been examined in this case by the prosecution, out of whom PW 2 Md. Yasin, PW 3 Lokan Mahto and PW 10 Sukar Bhuniya have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. Out of the remaining witnesses, PW 1 Govind Prajapati PW 4 Md. Farooque, PW 5 Banshi Sao, PW 6 Bhikhan Sao, PW 7 Usman Mian, PW 8 Baleshwar Sao, the informant himself, PW 12 Chhakan Sao, PW 17 Barun Kumar Mishra, and PW 18 Malo Mosamat, though supported the occurrence by the extremists in their village, either as eye-witnesses or hearsay witnesses, yet they have either turned hostile on the point of identification of the accused persons, or have stated that they had not seen the occurrence/extremists, or have stated that these accused persons were not involved in the occurrence. The case is supported mainly by the widows of the victims. The I.O has not been examined in the case. 7. The case is supported mainly by the widows of the victims. The I.O has not been examined in the case. 7. PW 8 Baleshwar Sao, the informant of the case, has only supported the incident that had happened in the night of 14.4.2001 in his village, in which several persons were killed, but he turned hostile on the point of identification of the accused and he neither named any of the culprits nor identified them in the Court. His evidence is not of much importance, except for the fact that he has supported the occurrence, naming, the deceased persons, and he has admitted to have given the fardbeyan before the police on the day of occurrence itself, on which he has identified his signature, which was marked Exhibit-I. 8. PW 11 Bandhani Devi is the wife of the deceased Parmeshwar Sao, who was killed in his house. Her father-in-law and brother-in-law were also butchered in the occurrence. This witness has stated that in the night of occurrence, she was present in the house along with her husband and other family members. The extremists in large number surrounded her house, scaled over the tiled roof of her house and started firing and killed her husband Parmeshwar Sao in the house. Thereafter they tied the hands of her father-in-law Dukhi Sao and brother-in-law Prayag Sao and they took them away with them towards Ghorchari agriculture field. She identified the extremists, including Kailash Sao and his brothers Baleshwar Sao and Mahesh Sao. They took her father-in-law Dukhi Sao and brother-in-law Prayag Sao to Ghorchari agriculture field, and they committed their murder by cutting them and they were playing football with the heads of the deceased persons. She fell on the feet of the extremists begging for the life of at least her brother-in-law, but the extremists spared none. The deceased persons were butchered in her presence. She has identified all the three accused appellants in the Court as murderers amongst the extremists. There is nothing of much importance in her cross-examination and she has denied the suggestion to have given false evidence. 9. PW 13 Dahani Devi Mosmat is the mother-in-law of PW 11 Bandhani Devi, wife of the deceased Dukhi Sao and mother of the deceased Parmeshwar Sao and Prayag Sao. There is nothing of much importance in her cross-examination and she has denied the suggestion to have given false evidence. 9. PW 13 Dahani Devi Mosmat is the mother-in-law of PW 11 Bandhani Devi, wife of the deceased Dukhi Sao and mother of the deceased Parmeshwar Sao and Prayag Sao. This witness has also fully supported the prosecution case and stated that when she was sleeping in the house with her family members, someone asked to open the door, whereupon she asked, who were there, and she got the reply that they were MCC people, whereupon her son Parmeshwar Sao started searching a ladder, so that they could flee through the roof. Whereupon the extremists told that they were already on the roof. All the family members confined themselves in one room. The extremists put the house to fire. When a portion of the house fell down, the family shifted to other portion of the house. The extremists were firing bullets through a hole, her son Parmeshwar Sao was hit by bullet and he died at the spot. Thereafter they started crying and came out of the house, when the extremists tied her husband Dukhi Sao and her son Prayag Sao, by rope. They apprehended other-persons also and took all of them to Ghorchari agriculture field. She fell on the feet of Kailash Sao and her daughter-in-law also fell on the feet of Baleshwar, begging for the life of other persons, but she was pushed away by Kailash. All of them were taken to Ghorchari agriculture field, where the extremists butchered the apprehended persons, cutting them. They also played football with the heads of the deceased persons. She has stated that after committing the murders they raised slogans roaming in the village. The extremists were 200-300 in number. She named some of the extremist, whom she had identified, including these accused persons, and she has identified all the three accused persons in the Court. This witness was also put to extensive cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons, wherein she has stated that these accused persons were also the members of MCC, and she had seen them in the front of her house. She has denied the suggestion to have given false evidence. 10. PW 16 Gudiya is the wife of the deceased Ram Briksh Sao. She has denied the suggestion to have given false evidence. 10. PW 16 Gudiya is the wife of the deceased Ram Briksh Sao. She has also supported the prosecution case stating that in the night of occurrence five to six hundred extremists, variously armed, had surrounded the village. Fourteen persons of Gram Raksha Dol had assembled at one place. Her husband was also a member of Gram Raksha Dal. All of them were apprehended by the extremists and they were taken to Ghorchari agriculture field, and in the morning at about 7.00 a.m., all of them were butchered. Some of the extremists cut their hands, some of them cut their feet and some of them beheaded them and thereafter they played football with the head of the deceased persons and they also drank their blood. This witness has further stated that the extremists had visited her house also searching her husband Ram Briksh Sao, and when he was not found there, they went to the house of Dukhi Sao, from where her husband and other members of Gram Raksha Dal were apprehended, they were tied and brought to the agriculture field. This witness along with her mother-in-law followed them, but they were threatened by the extremists and they remained near the house of Dukhi Sao. House of Dukhi Sao was also burnt. In all fourteen persons were murdered by the extremists. Later the police arrived at the place of occurrence. The post-mortem examination of the deceased persons were done at the place of occurrence itself and the bodies were cremated. This witness has again stated that the house of Gaffar Mian was also burnt by the extremists and Gaffar Mian and his daughter were burnt to death. Kaleshwar Shah was also murdered by the extremists and his house was also burnt. She has stated that the dependents of the deceased persons were given Government job. She has identified the accused Mahesh Sao and Baleshwar Sao in the Court stating that they were also amongst the persons committing the murder. She has not identified the accused Naresh Ganjhu in the court. This witness was put to extensive cross-examination by the defence, in which she has stated that she is the eye-witness to the occurrence and there is nothing in her cross-examination to discredit her testimony. 11. PW 21 Most. Piyaso is the wife of the deceased Bramh Deo Sao. She has not identified the accused Naresh Ganjhu in the court. This witness was put to extensive cross-examination by the defence, in which she has stated that she is the eye-witness to the occurrence and there is nothing in her cross-examination to discredit her testimony. 11. PW 21 Most. Piyaso is the wife of the deceased Bramh Deo Sao. Her father-in-law and husband were killed in the occurrence; This witness has stated that in the night of 13/14.4.2001, the extremists entered into her house and asked about her husband, who was not present in the house. They captured her father-in-law Banshi Sao and assaulted him by a tangi, and tied him with a rope. They also captured her uncle-in-law Munshi Sao and tied him also with the same rope. They were taken to the house of Dukhi Sao, where her husband was also sleeping. They fired bullets at the house of Dukhi Sao, and also put the house to fire. All the persons present in the house were taken out and they were tied and they were brought to agriculture field, where her husband, her father-in-law Banshi Sao, Rambriksha Sao, Parmeshwar Sao, Prayag Sao, Dukhi Sao, Tahal Sao, Nepali Kandu, Kamdeo Thakur, Munshi Ram, Jeeblal Ram, Sattar Khan, were murdered. All of them were butchered by the extremists, beheading them. The extremists had also played football with the heads of the deceased persons and thereafter they fled away towards the forest. This witness has named Kailash Sao and other extremists, including the accused Mahesh Sao and Baleshwar Sao, whom she has identified in the Court. She has also identified the accused Naresh Ganjhu by face in the Court. She was put to extensive cross-examination by the defence, wherein she has stated that the accused Mahesh Sao and Baleshwar Sao are her co-villagers whom she was knowing from before, and she has also admitted about land dispute with them. She has also stated in her cross-examination that the extremists had visited her house about midnight. The murders were not committed in the night, rather the murders were committed in the morning between 7.00-8.00 a.m. She has asserted that she is the eye-witness to the occurrence and has denied the suggestion to have falsely implicated the accused persons. 12. PW 23 Most. Chinta is the wife of the deceased Kamdeo, Thakur. The murders were not committed in the night, rather the murders were committed in the morning between 7.00-8.00 a.m. She has asserted that she is the eye-witness to the occurrence and has denied the suggestion to have falsely implicated the accused persons. 12. PW 23 Most. Chinta is the wife of the deceased Kamdeo, Thakur. She has also supported the prosecution case and has stated that the MCC extremists had surrounded the village in the night. They were searching the houses in the village and they entered her house also, searching her husband, who was not present in the house. Thereafter they went to the house of Dukhi Sao, where her husband was also present. They fired bullet at the house of Dukhi Sao, and also put the house to fire. Dukhi Sao, Parmeshwar Sao, Prayag Sao, Bramhdeo Sao, her husband, Rambriksha Sao, Nepali Kandu, Sattar Mian etc., were there in the house and all of them were tied by the MCC people and were brought to Ghorchari. The family members also followed them. All of them were butchered by the extremists, cutting them from their legs, then thigh, then hands and then beheaded them. The extremists had also played football with the heads of the deceased persons and thereafter they fled away towards the hills, raising slogans. Thereafter the administration came there and the dead bodies were cremated in the presence of the police. This witness has named Kailash Sao and other extremists, including the accused Mahesh Sao, Baleshwar Sao and Naresh Ganjhu, whom she has identified in the Court. In her cross-examination by the defence, she has stated that the accused Mahesh Sao and Baleshwar Sao are her co-villagers and she was knowing all the three accused persons from before. She has admitted in her cross-examination that she is not sure whether Naresh Ganjhu was present in the occurrence or not, and again she has stated that he was not present in the occurrence. She has denied the suggestion to have given false evidence. 13. PW 14 Bimali Devi is the wife of the deceased Nepali Kandu, PW 22 Most. Manwa is the wife of the deceased Shiv Tahal Sao, PW 24 Most. She has denied the suggestion to have given false evidence. 13. PW 14 Bimali Devi is the wife of the deceased Nepali Kandu, PW 22 Most. Manwa is the wife of the deceased Shiv Tahal Sao, PW 24 Most. Bano Devi is the wife of the deceased Munshi Ram, and these witnesses have also fully supported the prosecution case stating that their husbands were taken by the extremists and they were murdered along with other persons of the village. PW 14 Bimali Devi has stated that thirteen persons were butchered to death and one child was killed in the burnt house. She has also stated that the extremists had also collected the blood of the deceased persons. Similarly, PW 19 Munshi Sao and PW 20 Hariman Mian have also supported the prosecution case, stating that the extremists had committed the murder of the members of Gram Raksha Dal. These witnesses have identified all the three accused persons in the Court as the persons committing the occurrence. 14. PW 9 Sakina Khatoon (Bano) is the wife of the deceased Sattar Mian. Though she has supported the prosecution case stating that the occurrence had taken place on 14th April, 2001 at about 4:00 a.m., while she was sleeping in her house, and in the occurrence her husband was killed by the extremists cutting him on the road, and her house was also burnt, in which her daughter Anjum Khatoon, aged about 2 years, was also burnt to death but she has not identified any of these accused in the Court. 15. PW 15 Dr. Chandra Prakash Choudhary, had conducted the postmortem examinations on the dead bodies of Dukhi Sao, Jeeblal Ram, Kamdeo Thakur, Bansi Sao and Munshi Ram. He has given the details of his findings, which need not be discussed in detail, except mentioning that the deaths were caused due to shock and hemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries caused by sharp cutting weapons and in some cases the dead bodies were found to be beheaded. This witness has proved the post-mortem reports to be in his hand writing and signatures, which were marked Exhibits 2 to 6. In his cross-examination by the defence, he has stated that the post-mortem was conducted in the village itself in the open field, on the order of the D.C., Hazaribag, due to special circumstances of massacre. 16. This witness has proved the post-mortem reports to be in his hand writing and signatures, which were marked Exhibits 2 to 6. In his cross-examination by the defence, he has stated that the post-mortem was conducted in the village itself in the open field, on the order of the D.C., Hazaribag, due to special circumstances of massacre. 16. The medical officers conducting the post-mortem examinations on the other deceased were not examined in the Court. As stated earlier, even the I.O. has not been examined in the case. 17. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr PC, in which they have denied the evidence against them. 18. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts, in as much as, the informant of the case, PW 8 Baleshwar Sao has turned hostile on the point of identification and has not identified any accused. It has also been submitted by learned senior counsel that though it is alleged that fourteen persons were murdered in the occurrence, but the prosecution could prove the death of only five persons, as the Medical Officer(s) conducting the post-mortem examinations of the other deceased persons have not been examined in the case, neither their inquest reports nor the post-mortem reports were proved, and even the I.O. has not been examined in the case. Learned senior counsel also submitted that most of the witnesses have turned hostile, at least on the point of identification and the case is supported only by the interested witnesses, who are mainly the wives of the deceased. Learned counsel has also tried to take help of some discrepancies in evidence of the witnesses, and submitted that the witnesses supporting the prosecution case are not reliable witnesses. Learned counsel has also submitted that all the accused persons have been acquitted for the offences under Sections 307/149, 123/149, Sections 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the CLA Act and they have been convicted only for the offences under Sections 302/149, 436/149, 452/149, 120-B and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that though it is stated by some witnesses that after committing murder of the deceased persons, the extremists were playing football with their heads and also drinking their blood, but there is no such allegation in the FIR, nor any such statement was given by the witnesses before the police. It is submitted that it is for the first time before the Trial Court, that such statements have been made by the witnesses. Learned senior counsel has submitted that these facts of treating the dead bodies in such inhuman manner, had also not come in the earlier trial, in which some other accused persons had faced the trial arising out of the same occurrence. Learned senior counsel accordingly, submitted that since the facts that the accused persons were playing with the heads of the deceased as football and were also drinking the blood of the deceased, are only improvements made by the witnesses in the Trial Court, the same cannot be taken into consideration, and in fact these improvements by the witnesses render them wholly unreliable. Learned senior counsel, however, agreed that there is no cross-examination of the witnesses on these points by the defence side and that was a big lapse on-the part of the defence. It has been submitted that no conspiracy could be proved in the case and this is a fit case, in which all the appellants ought to have been given at least the benefits of doubt. 19. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges against all the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and though the informant has turned hostile in this case on the point of identification, but the fact remains that the FIR cannot be treated as an evidence, nor it is an encyclopedia of the prosecution case. The sum and substance of the FIR have also been supported by several witnesses including the informant, but they have turned hostile only on the point of identification. The wives of the deceased persons have fully supported the prosecution case stating that several unarmed persons, were brutally massacred by the accused persons and the witnesses have named and identified all the three accused persons. The wives of the deceased persons have fully supported the prosecution case stating that several unarmed persons, were brutally massacred by the accused persons and the witnesses have named and identified all the three accused persons. Some of the witnesses have given the gruesome details of the occurrence, stating that after beheading the deceased, the accused persons were playing with the heads as football and they also drank the blood. It has been submitted by learned counsel that no cross-examination on this point, has been made on behalf of the defence of any of these witnesses and at this stage, it cannot be said that this is only an improvement over the prosecution case. Learned counsel submitted that all the deceased victims were the members of Gram Raksha Dal and the carnage was done only to create terror and liquidate them, and they were gruesomely massacred. Learned counsel for the State, concluded by submitting that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the accused appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and they deserve no sympathy. 20. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that these cases relate to gruesome massacre of 14 persons at the hands of the extremists, though it is a fact that the prosecution has proved the death of only five persons, as the Medical Officer(s) conducting the post-mortem examination of the other deceased persons have not been examined in the case, neither their inquest report nor the post-mortem reports were proved, and even the I.O. has not been examined in the case. However, the manner, in which the occurrence had taken place, shakes the conscience. In Ramesh Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 529 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has noted that the culture of compromise has developed in the criminal cases, and the present case also appears to have been suffering from same culture of compromise, as many of the important witnesses, including the informant, have either turned hostile not supporting the case, or though they have supported the prosecution case, but they have turned hostile on the point of identification and have not identified the accused persons in the Court, nor named them in the evidence, for the obvious reasons. However, fortunately there are some witnesses, may be interested ones, but the fact remains that they are the victims in the case, in as much as, they are the wives and relatives of the deceased persons. The presence of these witnesses at the place •of occurrence cannot be denied and they have fully supported the prosecution case in which, fourteen persons were done to death by the extremists in the village. Their ocular evidences are also supported by the evidence of PW 15 Dr. Chandra Prakash Choudhary, who had conducted the post-mortem examinations on the dead bodies of five deceased and has proved the post-mortem reports of those deceased, fully corroborating the prosecution case. Though the postmortem reports of the other deceased persons, or their inquest reports were not proved due to non-examination of the Medical Officer(s) conducting the post-mortem examinations on their dead bodies, as also due to non-examination of the I.O. but the fact remains that it has come in the cross-examination of PW 15 Dr. Chandra Prakash Choudhary, that the post-mortem was conducted in the village itself, in the open field, on the order of the D.C., Hazaribag, due to special circumstances of massacre. 21. As regards the submission for the learned counsels for the appellants that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses, we are of the considered view that the discrepancies, if any, are only minor in nature, which, in the facts of the present case, are only natural, in as much as, the occurrence had taken place in the night hours, when the entire village was sleeping and the manner in which the occurrence had taken place, the witness must have been tenor stricken and traumatized, and as such, some minor discrepancies in their evidences, are bound to be there, which are only to be ignored in the facts of the present case. 22. However, the fact remains that in the FIR, it is not alleged that the accused persons were playing football with the heads of the deceased and were drinking the blood. Though some of the witnesses have stated these facts against the appellants and they have not been cross-examined on this point, but for the ends of justice, we looked into the case diary also, to find out whether such statements were made by any witness before the police. Though some of the witnesses have stated these facts against the appellants and they have not been cross-examined on this point, but for the ends of justice, we looked into the case diary also, to find out whether such statements were made by any witness before the police. We find from the case diary that no such statement was made by any witness before the police and these statements have been made for the first time during the trial in this case by the witnesses. Though these witnesses have not been cross-examined on this point and this is a great lacuna on the part of the defence in examination of the witnesses, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice, these aggravating circumstances cannot be taken into consideration against any of the appellants. Playing football with the heads and drinking blood of the deceased persons are such horrifying facts, that no witness could have lost sight of these facts and these facts, if true, must have• come in the FIR and in the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161 of the CrPC. These facts are conspicuously absent from both these places and we arc of the considered view that these are the improvements made by the witnesses during trial for projecting the occurrence as more shocking. 23. This apart, we do not find anything in the record to suggest that the defence was prejudiced in any manner, due to non-examination of the I.O. in the case. No vital contradiction could be pointed out by learned senior counsel for the appellants, which could not be taken by the defence due to non-examination of the I.O., thus, causing any prejudice to the defence. 24. Since most of the witnesses supporting the prosecution case have identified all these three appellants to be amongst the extremists committing the murders, we are of the considered view that on the basis of the evidence on record, the prosecution has been able to prove the fact that in the carnage, which had taken place at the hands of the extremists in large numbers, all these three accused appellants, had taken active part, and were also involved in committing the murder of the deceased persons. As such we find no illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court below finding the appellants guilty, and convicting and sentencing them for the offences under Sections 302/149, 436/149, 452/149, 342 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 25. In Death Reference No. 3 of 2013 and connected criminal appeals arising out of the same occurrence, (State of Jharkhand v. Kailash Sao and others, decided on 12.10.2017), the death reference was answered by this Court in negative and the death sentence awarded to the appellants therein was commuted to imprisonment for life, and relying upon a decision of the Honble Supreme Court of India in Vyas Ram and others v. State of Bihar, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 349 , which relates to the infamous gruesome carnage of 35 persons of a particular community in village Bara in the district of Gaya in the State of Bihar, it was directed that the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the accused persons shall mean the imprisonment for rest of their natural life. We are of the considered view that law of parity demands that the present appellants be also treated similarly. 26. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction dated 5th May, 2012 and order of sentence dated 8th May, 2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Hazaribag, in S.T. No.188 of 2005, convicting and sentencing the accused appellants Maheshwar Sao @ Mahesh Sao, Baleshwar Sao and Naresh Ganjhu, which we hereby, affirm. The appellants are already in custody, undergoing the sentence. 27. However, in the facts of this case, in the present case also, we hereby, clarify that the sentence of imprisonment for life, awarded to the appellants shall also mean the same, i.e., the imprisonment for the rest of their natural life, as was awarded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vyas Ram's case (supra), and followed by this Court in Death Reference No.3 of 2013 and connected criminal appeals (supra). 28. Consequently, we do not find any merit in both these criminal appeals, which are accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment. Ananda Sen, J.-I agree. Appeals dismissed.